You can pull one case to back your argument about anything. If you really want to look at the issue try John Lott's book.
http://tinyurl.com/pgmqx4 On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Constance Warner <cawar...@his.com> wrote: > Shoot back? SHOOT BACK? If you're in a shooting match, regardless of the > source of the guns or the justice of your cause, your chances of death or > serious injury just went up by several thousand per cent. Empowering > citizens to shoot back at the bad guys might be justifiable if there were NO > cops, NO law, and NO courts. [Actually, we have cops, law, and courts; > we're luckier in that respect than they are in many countries in the world > today.] But with a "shoot back when warranted" policy, you're postulating a > situation in which amateur, untrained citizens are charge of individualized > law enforcement, using lethal force. This is, to put it mildly, a risk > management nightmare. > > I don't know what "places with strict gun control" you are staying out of. > Most parts of Washington, D.C., are safe, in part because there are so many > cops--and so many different kinds of cops. They're EVERYWHERE. They even > watch out for minor transgressions (like using a tripod without a permit), > which is annoying; but at least they're there. And I haven't noticed much > gun crime in Montgomery County lately, either, so you could always come here > to shop, dine, and enjoy our parks. [In the one exception to this rule--the > 2002 snipers--guns carried by honest citizens would not have helped. You > can look up the details, if you want to verify this.] > > --Constance Warner > > > > On Aug 11, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Fred Holmes wrote: > > We should license good citizens to carry guns so that they could shoot >> back when warranted. You can't take guns away from the criminals. It just >> won't happen. You can't take drugs away from those who want them. They get >> them anyway from the black (street) market. There are a lot more >> "unintended consequences" than the simplistic argument below would indicate. >> If you don't allow the good citizen to carry a gun, he won't, and the >> criminals will know that their victims will always be unarmed. Knowing >> that, the criminals commit more crime. >> >> I stay out of places with strict gun control as much as I possibly can. >> The crime rate (risk of getting attacked) is much higher in those places. >> >> Fred Holmes >> >> At 12:21 PM 8/11/2009, phartz...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:36 AM, TPiwowar<t...@tjpa.com> wrote: >>> >>> Using Microsoft popularity-malware logic suggests that the more people >>>> who >>>> are walking around with weapons the more often those weapons will be >>>> used. >>>> >>> >>> Microsoft logic or not, I would agree. Just about every human is >>> already armed with fists, yet fists rarely stop fist fights from >>> happening, and in fact, they cause them to happen. >>> >>> I would have to think that if it came to pass where it was legal for >>> just about everybody to be walking around with loaded guns, that big >>> switch blades, machetes, blackjacks, brass knucks and all sorts of >>> other weapons of destruction would also be legal. After all, guns are >>> more lethal and dangerous than those others, so if guns become okay to >>> pack around, why not less lethal devices? Otherwise, only allowing >>> legal gun toting would be nothing but a sop to the gun lobby and >>> enthusiasts. Why not let the individual choose their own WMD? Who >>> would want government making such decisions for you? >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> ************************************************************************* >>> ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** >>> ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** >>> ************************************************************************* >>> >> >> >> ************************************************************************* >> ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** >> ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** >> ************************************************************************* >> > > > ************************************************************************* > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > ************************************************************************* > ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
